From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E668EB64C5 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:31:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:References:To:From:Subject: Cc:Message-Id:Date:Mime-Version:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=wXVPPYxqR2XC3cJBoNMEVY3Ij51JmsSEluXjtx0xXaA=; b=r8ym1WgoXDgnXb uaFwX/qKfT4P+g5VCadAjwTK7XYT8Jf/7u0yP44Auh137cYch3+2fvrFXJO7xwOopUytte9ywBnRo y05MFMdiFnnt8lW09jBAtcQZ6FKRydKMMVvgIsbV1WLVMpQf/Xvt6P64MpRWvtM2v2RyM4K8fIKAk 38hQSZukK7DnRN4ol4GtHX3VpUFm9z3tbnqPdo6TTiz+vOTE2GF8YZvWKwpxbrQajYiOsaFRMh6sk 4vfeHRVmVmyEjMjK0+bvPve+DuJoOXbKlIZrlsiuac1frO/dpQp4Li2Wfh86Fg/7fF+N8qUdPuCdM l4B+nR9MZT3rYEfdt7Jg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1smtfT-0000000EvWv-0UTr; Sat, 07 Sep 2024 11:31:51 +0000 Received: from nyc.source.kernel.org ([2604:1380:45d1:ec00::3]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1smtfP-0000000EvWV-3GQH for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Sat, 07 Sep 2024 11:31:49 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by nyc.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A389A404F3; Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:31:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 02483C4CEC2; Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:31:45 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1725708706; bh=efk1JOla+fXnaGRV8mAv/M39xrggt3sD41Iy3FnCrpk=; h=Date:Cc:Subject:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Sv4JhscTcVihP0i6jCXpUm2sov6FUqr1PCfWWuw6lRkZpIw9wxglUmH/2GaXtKYZF ydqPWeeIKO8qxVNmO8yS42UggxhewJnGioNkZtbe74GkSeqnylctbvllZPdVCQlJqH 8Ilqcr23mP8Zb0irRhg8SoMcwszBhLam2zileDI8ukpXuiK1CofNP58jAzfYQqSRCt yMBOIlOw6NcvuLd6owhTqXgkTUiEMnoCBCCClpOin3ZJbpFP6LKwYRqgyjNrOzfiOB YDAGy50fLKeeMFQYJ0+rKDEqwrZTTmMrLUeUxDpYXSMN5LaNZX2lT9R1Gxwfwjr1b+ YKTLFtbr4oQTQ== Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2024 14:31:42 +0300 Message-Id: Cc: "Pingfan Liu" , "Jan Hendrik Farr" , "Lennart Poettering" , "Eric Biederman" , "Baoquan He" , "Dave Young" , "Mark Rutland" , "Will Deacon" , "Catalin Marinas" , , , Subject: Re: [RFCv2 0/9] UEFI emulator for kexec From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" To: "Jarkko Sakkinen" , "Philipp Rudo" , "Ard Biesheuvel" X-Mailer: aerc 0.18.2 References: <20240819145417.23367-1-piliu@redhat.com> <20240906125438.1e54c5f6@rotkaeppchen> In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240907_043147_905349_A013CEDC X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 11.65 ) X-BeenThere: kexec@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+kexec=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Sat Sep 7, 2024 at 2:27 PM EEST, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri Sep 6, 2024 at 1:54 PM EEST, Philipp Rudo wrote: > > Let me throw an other wild idea in the ring. Instead of implementing > > a EFI runtime we could also include a eBPF version of the stub into the > > images. kexec could then extract the eBPF program and let it run just > > like any other eBPF program with all the pros (and cons) that come with > > it. That won't be as generic as the EFI runtime, e.g. you couldn't > > simply kexec any OS installer. On the other hand it would make it > > easier to port UKIs et al. to non-EFI systems. What do you think? > > BPF would have some guarantees that are favorable such as programs > always end, even faulty ones. It always has implicit "ExitBootServices". > > Just a remark. Some days ago I was thinking could some of the kernel functionality be eBPF at least like in formal theory because most of it is amortized, i.e. does a fixed chunk of work. Not going into that rabbit hole but I really like this idea and could be good experimentation ground for such innovation. BR, Jarkko _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec